651 N.Y.S.2d 726 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1997
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Social Services which denied petitioner’s request to have his name expunged from the State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment.
On January 9, 1992, petitioner’s name was placed on the
In Matter of Lee TT. v Dowling (87 NY2d 699), the Court of Appeals held that due process requires that a report of suspected abuse must be supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence before it may be released to providers or licensing agencies. Petitioner is correct in urging that an incorrect standard of proof was used by the ALJ at the hearing and the matter must be annulled and remitted for a new hearing based upon a "fair preponderance of the evidence” standard (supra, at 712). If no preponderance of evidence is established at the new hearing, petitioner’s name must be expunged, as a liberty interest is involved (see, Matter of Nils TT. v New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 221 AD2d 874, 874-875, lv denied 87 NY2d 812).
Since the report was found to be supported by some credible evidence, expungement is not warranted at this point. During the investigative process the information may be retained in the Central Register on the strength of some credible evidence and released only under the terms and conditions listed in Social Services Law § 422 (4) (A) (see, Matter of Lee TT. v Dowling, supra, at 712).
We reject petitioner’s contention that the arbitration determination in his favor in his disciplinary proceeding binds respondents in the instant matter. The disciplinary matter
Any other claims concerning a violation of petitioner’s due process rights in the administrative proceedings need not be addressed at this juncture since we have ordered a new hearing.
Crew III, White, Casey and Peters, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is annulled, without costs, and matter remitted to respondents for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.